How about Aristotle? Would you place much credence on his views? Millions of people did for may hundreds of years, but we now now that most of his theories are sheer bunk.

I'd recommend always to go with what makes sense. Use your nous. Don't assume that highly decorated individuals who boast a string of letters after their name must always know what they are talking about, especially if what they are talking about is incomprehensible.

The current economic crisis, in my very arrogant opinion, is due to both the buyer and the seller, with regard to complex derivatives and other financial products etc, not understanding what the f**k they are doing. Sorry for the direct language.

"The fund, which started operations with $1 billion of investor capital, was extremely successful in the first years, with annualized returns of over 40%. However, following the 1997 East Asian financial crisis and the Russian Financial Crises the highly leveraged fund in 1998 lost $4.6 billion in less than four months and failed, becoming one of the most prominent examples of risk potential in the investment industry."

I think at this point we should distinguish between the 'hard' and the 'soft' sciences. Physcis is a hard science. Economics is definitely a soft science. And so is Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The distinction is significant and something everyone should be aware of. The results at DXOMark are hard science that is open to correction from anyone who disagrees with it, using a relatively simple process of comparing their own cameras. (Notice my amazing ability to get the topic back on photography).

Economics is the quintessential example of a soft science because it embraces such a huge span of variables that we simply cannot fully understand or control. Climate Science is another example that embraces about 30 different scientific disciplines. It's no wonder there's so much confusion on the issue, and antagonism.

I'll quote from Wikipedia here to give my comments credence, although surely I don't need any additional credence considering I have over 8 thousand posts .

Quote

In soft sciences, there are often numerous variables that might have an influence on some variable of interest, and many of those variables either may be non-quantifiable or may be quantifiable but difficult to obtain data on; but further, even with plentiful data, it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of such a large number of variables. In contrast, typically in the hard sciences there are only a few, readily identified, causative variables, making it easier to infer specific causative effects.

Stamper, it must be the Scottish dictionary that's confusing your listening/interpretative powers.

Unquote

You know the argument has been lost when it gets personal. Rob the post you used to state this is probably one of the worst you have made in over 8000 posts? Were you laughing at the plight of the job applicants or commiserating with them? Probably the former.

The punchline? In 24 hours they received 183 applications.Hey friggin' ho.

The attitudes that you and Russ have to your fellow human beings is disturbing. It smacks of being one of ...I am alright Jack. Once again I will remind you that this crisis is one of Capitalism something that both of you are staunch supporters which you keep trumpeting about. A few posts back I asked Russ for his thoughts on beating the crisis which unfortunately he didn't reply to. Something positive from the two of you would be welcome?

I think at this point we should distinguish between the 'hard' and the 'soft' sciences. Physcis is a hard science. Economics is definitely a soft science. And so is Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The issue of climate change is quite clear-cut - it's happening. Overall global warming is an indisputable fact. There is some disagreement on the mechanism behind it, but the overwhelming scientific opinion points towards the atmospheric carbon increase as a major factor, and that atmospheric carbon increase is down to human activity. But I agree, we can't be absolutely sure, and why should we take a cautionary approach, improve the quality of the environment, improve air quality, reduce pollution, obtain energy independence (not realiant on foreign imports of fuels), become more sustainable, and so on, if it all turns out that we needn't have bothered?

Of course it is. Even our Australian prime Minister, Julia Gillard knows that. She's said many times that climate change is real. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real, knows nothing about climate change. Climate is always changing. In fact, as a person who has a strong leaning towards Buddhism, I would say that change is the only permanent state of affairs in this world.

Amidst this undoubted change which cannot be denied, unless one is a climate change denier, and I suspect there are very few such people who are so ignorant, we have the very soft science relating to mankind's contribution to the current warming, and a very soft science relating to the ultimate consequences of mankind's possibly very slight contribution to such warming. That's the problem.

The history of past recent warming periods, such as the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period, tends to suggest that such warm periods are beneficial for mankind, whereas the cooling periods in between such warm periods, such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age, were not pleasant.

I don't believe there is any consistent, overall change to climate that applies over the entire globe simultaneously. At the time the Vikings were leaving Greenland because it was getting too cold to grow crops and raise cattle, the people of the greatest civilization of the times in South East Asia, the Khmers of Cambodia who built the amazing temples and irrigation system at Angkor Wat, who dominated the entire region, including the Vietnamese who were later so troublesome to the Americans, suffered a different type of climate change.

For at least a couple of seasons, the monsoons did not arrive and the snows of the Himalayas did not melt, which normally flow down the Mekong and fill the lakes and irrigation systems around Angkor Wat.

The agricultural system of the Khmer civilization was devastated. The neighbouring Thais took that opportunity to invade, and ransaked the capital in 1431.

It was always a mystery why the local population fled, never to return, leaving the temples and city to become a lost city, gradually becoming overgrown by jungle until the French colonialist discovered it in the 19th century.

The jigsaw is now making sense, thanks to some Australian scientists examining tree rings of ancient forests in the area.

Quote

The upsurge in overall global temperatures is the fastest & most pronounced we've seen so far

I think you are referring to what has been measured so far. What has been measured during the past 100 years is far, far greater than what has been measured during the past 20 million years. Statements like your above quote have to be interpreted.

I'll give you the correct interpretation, as follows:

"The great paucity of information on global temperatures during the past 20 million years years provides no firm evidence as to whether or not current warming trends are faster than what has occurred during any similar period in the past. The resolution of our data is not sufficient. (See, we're still on the topic of photography. Resolution is very important ).

Of course, when climate scientists occasionally make such statements in line with your quote above, they are probably advised by the media experts in charge, not to tell the truth, or it may cause people to think for themselves and undermine the cause of climate-change-alarmism.

I don't believe there is any consistent, overall change to climate that applies over the entire globe simultaneously.

So far as I'm aware, that's not what scientists are claiming, so a bit of a strawman argument. Overall global warming is a fact, the science suggests that rise in global temperatures is faster than at any time in the last few million years at least. The impact of that rise is a disruption in climates around the globe. No one is suggesting an overall climate change, everywhere, but climate changes as various systems respond to rising temperatures averaged across the world.

Quote

Of course, when climate scientists occasionally make such statements in line with your quote above, they are probably advised by the media experts in charge, not to tell the truth, or it may cause people to think for themselves and undermine the cause of climate-change-alarmism.

Do you have an evidence that scientists are being advised by these 'media experts in charge'? Sounds all a bit 'conspiracy theory' to me. Scientists tend to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, opening their data & subsequent interpretation to review, testing & rebuttal. Your slur, because the suggestion that scientists are deliberately lying about the data is just that, seems to have little basis in fact, unless you've got some evidence.

As for climate-change alarmism, the current unprecedented melting of Arctic sea-ice, the withdrawal of alpine glaciers, and the like, really aren't fantasy. They shold alarm us all.

The evidence is right in front of you Bill. All you have to do is compare what Jeremy's saying against economic conditions in both Europe and the US. If Jeremy were able to respond to new information he'd realize that pumping funny money into our economies, rather than improving them is trashing them. "New information" to Jeremy would be the observable fact that there's no such thing as a Keynesian "multiplier." I can't comment on the significance of his "political ideology," but I think the situation speaks for itself.

Fine, Russ. If you can play "I know you are, but what am I?" ... So can I.

I'm not a "member" of anything. I am most definitely NOT a Republican, but I don't really tow the line for the Democrats either. My underlying philosophy is one of compassion. I believe a society is an extended family. We take care of each other, because compassion is love and love is all we got. Those of us who are lucky enough to succeed well beyond our needs have a choice ... We can share a bit, or we can pretend we actually deserve every bit of fortune and fuck the rest of y'all.

You, however, are nothing more than a mouthpiece for a specific political agenda called the Republican Party.

Sad part is ... Like Romney, you seem to have been repeating the mantras and half-truths so long you have forgotten the cynical basis for you platform and actually believe the bullshit.

I have far more respect for Republicans who know they are selfish sons of bitches.

With regards to your rant about theories, etc ... I find it to be even less interesting than the discussion about what is the definition of art.

The experience of the nations experimenting with austerity is pretty clear - to me and many others.

So far as I'm aware, that's not what scientists are claiming, so a bit of a strawman argument. Overall global warming is a fact, the science suggests that rise in global temperatures is faster than at any time in the last few million years at least. The impact of that rise is a disruption in climates around the globe. No one is suggesting an overall climate change, everywhere, but climate changes as various systems respond to rising temperatures averaged across the world.Do you have an evidence that scientists are being advised by these 'media experts in charge'? Sounds all a bit 'conspiracy theory' to me. Scientists tend to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, opening their data & subsequent interpretation to review, testing & rebuttal. Your slur, because the suggestion that scientists are deliberately lying about the data is just that, seems to have little basis in fact, unless you've got some evidence.

You misunderstand me. I'm not the person reading, examining and approving for publication the scientists's papers. I'm the layperson who hears the politicised reports of the findings and who uses his nous, with a bit of help from research on the internet, to make sense of the summarised and biased statements on such matters. I don't have the skill nor time, to examine all the scientific papers in all the 30-odd scientific disciplines involved in climate science.

If I hear a 'claimed' climate scientist declare over the radio that the current warming period is more rapid than at any other period in the past 20 million years, as I have, then my entire intelligence and understanding of scientific matters, or my nous, tells my that such a statement is total bunk, especially in view of past misrepresentations such as the Hockey Stick graph which appeared to 'deny' the existence of the MWP.

It all has to do with resolution, old chap. If you were to produce a graph of temperature changes during the past 20 million years, using just 1cm on the horizontal axis to represent each 100 year period, the graph would be 200 kilometres long.

We're in a period where huge quantities of scientific instruments are taking a massive number of measurements all over the place.

Computer models may predict that as a result of global warming, whether entirely natural or not, the intensity and frequency of hurricanes and cyclones may increase. However, we simply don't have accurate global records of hurricane and cyclone activity that extend beyond 100 years in order to confirm that hypothesis.

Quote

As for climate-change alarmism, the current unprecedented melting of Arctic sea-ice, the withdrawal of alpine glaciers, and the like, really aren't fantasy. They should alarm us all.

The melting is not unprecedented. Not even nearly. About 25,000 years ago the Aborigines of Australia were able to walk over from Indonesia to North Australia, and walk over from the Australian mainland to Tasmania, at low tide.

Go back further and the first humans out of Africa were able to walk over what is now the Bosphorous that divides Europe from Turkey.

Climate and sea levels have always been changing. Statements that such changes are more rapid as a result of our CO2 emissions, than at any period in the past, are simply not scientifically established, nor scientifically proved.

... I'm the layperson who hears the politicised reports of the findings and who uses his nous, with a bit of help from research on the internet, to make sense of the summarised and biased statements on such matters. I don't have the skill nor time, to examine all the scientific papers in all the 30-odd scientific disciplines involved in climate science ...

... Climate and sea levels have always been changing. Statements that such changes are more rapid as a result of our CO2 emissions, than at any period in the past, are simply not scientifically established, nor scientifically proved.

So, a self-confessed layperson, lacking the skill & time to examine the scientific papers across a range of disciplines, but able to state that current climate changes & CO2 emissions are not scientifically shown to be related. OK.

So, a self-confessed layperson, lacking the skill & time to examine the scientific papers across a range of disciplines, but able to state that current climate changes & CO2 emissions are not scientifically shown to be related. OK.

No. Wrong again. Not scentifically proved to be related, is my point. One doesn't have to have 6 PhDs to understand the concept of proof in science. But one does have to understand that a consensus of scientific opinion on any complex matter does not constitute proof.

Quote

Do you have an evidence that scientists are being advised by these 'media experts in charge'? Sounds all a bit 'conspiracy theory' to me.

Not hard evidence, just using my nous again. I'm not involved in the mass media, apart from my presence on LL, although I have worked with newspapers in the past. Media people tend to be experts in the presentation of the news in such a way as to capture the attention of their audience.

It would be very strange indeed if a climate scientist who was invited for an interview, and who was not familiar with media techniques, was not given any advice on how best to present his argument.

For example, if I were a scientist talking about the acidification of the oceans, which was my speciality, for example, I would present certain facts on the current pH of the oceans and that there was evidence that the pH had changed since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I would explain that the current pH of the oceans varies between 7.9 and 8.4 depending on season, location and depth at which measurements are taken. I'd explain that the current levels are clearly alkaline and that the term acidification refers to a shift from the alkaline end of the spectrum to the acidic end of the spectrum, and that such a change over the past 100 years or so is in the order of 0.1pH, which still leaves the oceans predominantly alkaline, with a long, long way to go before the water becomes even neutral.

I'm sure the media experts would advise me not to bore my listeners with facts, and just get the message across that the barrier reef is in dire straits, that species in the oceans may become extinct, and that it's all due to CO2 emissions.